But it's a lot harder now because I bought one. 2011 MacBook Pro on Craigslist for $500, including Microsoft Office for Mac and other accessories. I am starting a computer science program next month and everyone I talked to said Macs are best for computer programming, including Web development and hosting virtual machines. So I got one.

Still trying to figure out basic things but I'm sure it will come to me.

Well, if you've never used one you have to give it a chance. Sooner or later you'll be flying on it and getting things done. I've been a mac guy since 1990 and the experience just keeps getting better and better. I do however worry about a computer company that makes it's living from phone sales, though ;)

OS X is a UNIX environment and a lot of the old programming languages (C, etc.) were originally developed on UNIX systems. Better for programming? I don't know outside of my specific experience (Max/MSP, C) but I do know that Apple's native programming environment (Xcode) is wonderful.

I will only say that if everything works you got a good deal. Have fun.

Thank you, you are very gracious, more than I deserve. You and a few other people here have license to rub it in now that I finally got one! A few people predicted I would eventually get a Mac and they are right.

Yes, it was a good deal. People were wanting around $600 for 2008 models, fifteen inches with some good software. This is a little small at 13 inches, but just a couple of years old. It was 4 gigs of ram, very respectable, and a 320 gig hard drive, and has Office for Mac. I do admit it looks cool. My laptop finally croaked after five years of use and I needed to get a replacement.

I have been attending web technology meetups and most of the professionals use Macs. They say the Mac is set up better to run virtual machines, set up LAMP stacks and other Web development tasks, and recommended I get one for my classes.

It seems to run faster than my PC laptop but it sometimes freezes up when downloading stuff. I can't use a lot of the software I got for my PC - bummer.

If you go to www.apple.com, then at the top right, click Support, then second row down, far right, click Communities, you can ask and read a ton of issues with a good crew of Apple users always willing to help.

__________________
Less than 300 days until retirement.
Gretsch Renown

I've been brought up in an IBM world, starting with Fortran back in 1976. I am still heavily vested in Windows OS, but got a MacBook a few years, and an iPad just for fun.

I appreciate what a Mac does, and also the virtues of a PC (funny, when I was coming up, everything was technically a PC.) There's a lot of crossover between the two platforms, and certain things at which each excels. While I like some of the intuitiveness of the Mac OS and especially the i devices, I find that there are some limitations and some maddening aspects. I guess the same can be said for a PC.

In the end, I've still got my MacBook but I use my PC, and I keep an iPad handy for 3G access when I travel. I haven't made the leap to a smartphone yet, but that's imin...immen... about to take place. Really digging the iPhone5, also lured by the SamsungS4, although the Windows phones have no appeal for me.

Anyway, depending what you do the most, the Mac may be the best choice. It does excel at audio and video applications, and in fact I have Final Cut Pro and Logic on my MacBook, while the PC is all business, web, and graphics.

I had a friend innocently ask me if you could buy new XP laptops. I restrained myself - that whole system is inherently insecure and pushing twelve years old. I think I have one pair of shoes that old.

Having used Windows 8 on a work laptop, I'm very glad that I have a Windows 7 on my main work PC and on my laptop (as well as OS X on my laptop, obviously). The ideas are good but the execution is horrendous. I'm computer literate and have used the main operating systems as well as a few obscure ones but I've never had so much of a headache as trying to navigate Windows 8. It's the lack of discoverability that's the real problem. If I wanted to find my settings, how am I meant to know that they're on the right hand side on a fold-out menu unless I discover it by pure chance?!

Absolute nightmare.

DMC, you got a very good deal. The 13.3" MBPs are good machines. I have a 2009 15" model and it's done me very proud for the last several years. It's been dropped and worked hard and it's never let me down. I've upgraded the RAM, HDD and put a new battery in it but other than that, it's basically stock. If I put an SSD in it, it'll scream along but that's just out of my grasp financially at the moment but might be worth considering as an upgrade. Which version of OS X are you on? I'd imagine 10.7 or 10.8.

Macs hold their value for a good reason. They are very well-built and reliable machines. OS X is no easier or harder to learn than Windows (7 that is...) and once you get the hang of it, it's very simple. Bermuda - what are you trying to do? I have the opposite problem. If I need to do something in Windows, I get stuck for software. Most of what I do (and used to do) was either cross-platform or Mac specific.

My old laptop finally died. I had fixed it so many many times, and it was being held together with glue and duct tape. I had no choice but to replace it.

And I've had a MAC tower for music production for years. I felt I might as well drink the rest of the apple kool aid.

And for all the complaints people have about the "cult of apple" and having to buy into their lifestyle to use their products, Windows has gone the same route with Windows 8. It's not longer just an operating system, it's now a lifestyle system. ugh.

XP is like the cockroach or DW 5000 pedal - perfected long ago and impossible to improve upon. Well, Windows 7 is pretty good and I really like it. From what I've heard of Windows 8, I'm going to stay far, far away.

XP is like the cockroach or DW 5000 pedal - perfected long ago and impossible to improve upon. Well, Windows 7 is pretty good and I really like it. From what I've heard of Windows 8, I'm going to stay far, far away.

The main issue with XP is the automatic access to the root (super) user. If you're trying to execute remote code then unless you log in as a user with limited privileges (which isn't the default) then it's quite trivial to gain access to the system. If you accidentally download malware (incredibly easy to do), that malware automatically has access to everything and has a free reign on your computer. This cannot be fixed in XP and is an integral part of the system.

That's why Vista, 7 and 8 all prompt you to enter a password when you install something new. Most of the time you're running as a reduced user and only when you need to install something are you briefly logged in as the root user and then only to execute that process. This model has always been used in UNIX and Linux (in Linux, it's called the 'sudo' command). So OS X is inherently more secure than XP - that's before taking into account the relative obscurity. Modern Windows systems are probably roughly as secure as OS X and Linux but are still more prone to attack by being the biggest target.

I liked XP. I was using it very early on and it was buggy but after two or three years it was a great operating system - but it was always a security liability. Now there are so many methods of compromising XP I would suggest that everybody uses something newer and more secure unless you're running it offline and keeping tabs on every remote storage device that is used.

I've been impressed with Microsoft's built-in security features in 7 and they really are quite excellent free options. With 7 working with many legacy XP applications, I can't think of a compelling reason to continue using XP - especially now computers powerful enough to run it are very cheap indeed. 8 is at its root a good system and definitely improves upon 7 in terms of efficiency and speed of execution but the user interface is horrible and split down the middle. 7 is the best version of Windows I've ever used and at various points I've used them all (including NT and Me) since Windows 3.1 and a couple of them before that (I used 2 when I was at primary school and very young - five or six).

If you're running XP as a day-to-day system now and you're using it online the chances are you have a virus or malware of some kind on there - no matter how cautious you are.

On another forum I frequent, one of the members offered to tell me what he thought of Macs. Here is his post:

Well, one of the biggest disadvantages to MAC is that MAC basically equals limitation. Upgrading, overclocking, troubleshooting, and even regular maintenance are impossible or close to impossible. Then there are the factors of inefficient coding, which causes higher than usual CPU load, resulting in hardware based lag, and even complete crashes quite often. Then there's the issue of compatibility. Stevie actually decided to implement what he likes to call "parallels", which run a component of windows within the MAC OS in order to reduce compatibility issues. This actually made me laugh quite hard when I first learned about it, because it begs the obvious question: Why the hell would you buy a MAC if you can't use it without parts of a PC OS? Though I will admit that I hate Microsoft nearly as much as I hate MAC. This is an overview of the root major problems with MACs.

This guy is a self-admitted computer nerd. I'm not sure that any of his issues have had any impact on me, although it's quite possible.

On another forum I frequent, one of the members offered to tell me what he thought of Macs. Here is his post:

Well, one of the biggest disadvantages to MAC is that MAC basically equals limitation. Upgrading, overclocking, troubleshooting, and even regular maintenance are impossible or close to impossible. Then there are the factors of inefficient coding, which causes higher than usual CPU load, resulting in hardware based lag, and even complete crashes quite often. Then there's the issue of compatibility. Stevie actually decided to implement what he likes to call "parallels", which run a component of windows within the MAC OS in order to reduce compatibility issues. This actually made me laugh quite hard when I first learned about it, because it begs the obvious question: Why the hell would you buy a MAC if you can't use it without parts of a PC OS? Though I will admit that I hate Microsoft nearly as much as I hate MAC. This is an overview of the root major problems with MACs.

This guy is a self-admitted computer nerd. I'm not sure that any of his issues have had any impact on me, although it's quite possible.

Wow. That guy sounds like he hates everything. I bet he sits on his front porch yelling at the kids to stay off his lawn ;)

Actually, I look at my computers as tools. If it works great when I get it and I can use it to actually get things done, then I'm happy. I've never understood that whole "can't upgrade thing", because I normally buy the max-ed out model to begin with, so when its time to upgrade, I'm buying a whole new machine. Why upgrade? Usually, when I discover new things I want to do, that new software will require a more powerful model anyway, so the whole "being a computer geek so I can keep my hardware up with my software" I've never understood.

Computer geeks remind of the people with Harley-Davidson motorcycles who keep tinkering and tinkering to get the bike to stop leaking oil. Or the drum geek convinced there's a new thing right around the corner to make playing easier.

i) I rarely have full-system crashes. In the last seven years I've been running a Mac, I think it's happened four times. My systems are on practically 24/7 and I rarely reboot. Two of those were after I installed updates. Full-system crashes are very uncommon.

ii) 'Parallels' is what's called a 'Virtual Machine'. There are lots of different virtual machine programs out there and Parallels is only one of them. It is there ostensibly to run other OS's in OS X but you can likewise do the same on Windows or even on Linux. The fact that OS X has a virtual machine tool available for purchase is no different from any other operating system.

iii) Overclocking is a dangerous game - especially in laptops. Computer designers always use trade-offs to design their machines and in laptops that is usually to use a lower-power and lower-heat ULV (ultra-low-voltage) or small version of the desktop chip because heat dissipation is a real issue. That's not taking into account the effect of overclocking on battery life - which is usually absolutely catastrophic. Sure, having a Mac makes it hard to overclock but you should only be overclocking on a box that is built from the ground-up to do so. Extra cooling, a more rugged power supply and a blasť attitude towards your electricity bill help.

iv) Modern Macs are harder to repair and tinker with, absolutely. Apple is not the only company gluing in batteries and soldering in RAM though. Making the machines harder to repair does mean that they can design the product more efficiently. Take a Macbook Air, take away all the little hinderances to repair and you have a laptop half as large again. It's a compromise and I will admit that the difficulty of repair is a sore spot for me.

Frankly, your 'computer nerd' friend needs to wake up and smell the roses. If he's using the concept of a virtual machine as an argument against Macs, then he needs to read about what virtual machines actually do and realise that they also exist for every other system.

I simply try not to support monopolies... but I think google controls my life.

Other than that, I didn't grow up on macs, so it's not very user friendly and from what I've seen, windows is more efficient (And you all know how I love efficiency) when it comes to doing what I, the user, wants it to do. (I'm American, I like doing what I want! And things that will do stuff FOR me!) Haha.

I just searched Google, "Does Google control my life?" And it's true, it does.

__________________
"I fear a world where the rich and poor do better than the middle class." - Christian W.

I simply try not to support monopolies... but I think google controls my life.

Other than that, I didn't grow up on macs, so it's not very user friendly and from what I've seen, windows is more efficient (And you all know how I love efficiency) when it comes to doing what I, the user, wants it to do. (I'm American, I like doing what I want! And things that will do stuff FOR me!) Haha.

I just searched Google, "Does Google control my life?" And it's true, it does.

Apple is in no way a monopoly. I'm unclear whether you think Google is a search monopoly. It's definitely not a monopoly in terms of any of their other products. Apple is only a monopoly in that they control their own ecosystems - Apple has a monopoly on Apple products (vertical integration if we're getting into business analysis terminology). In the PC market, Microsoft holds the position of power in terms of install base (and was found to be practising uncompetitive behaviour - abuse of a monopoly several years ago).

Macs let you do plenty. Availability of programmes is excellent, especially professional creative software. The programming environment (Xcode) is superb and I would say that it is no easier or harder to use than Windows, it's just easier.

So, are you having issues with iPhones, which are locked down, or Macs, which aren't and even when they are are easily overridable and designed as such?

Not to inject politicism into this discussion, but I saw a funny picture where someone was protesting big corporations and how they squeeze out the little guys, and had to tweet it on his iPhone, so all his friends with iPads sitting in the park and/or coffeeshops (obviously not working) received the tweet to go join in the demonstration ;)

Not to inject politicism into this discussion, but I saw a funny picture where someone was protesting big corporations and how they squeeze out the little guys, and had to tweet it on his iPhone, so all his friends with iPads sitting in the park and/or coffeeshops (obviously not working) received the tweet to go join in the demonstration ;)

Yea, totally! You can get black, OR white macbooks these days! Talk about individuality!

I don't know why people argue these points. Macs, by their very design are meant to be uniform, locked down, and limiting. For some people, this is just the ticket. They don't want to mess with things, and the way apple tells them to do things works for them. They don't need the overwhelming majority of software titles because they can do most of what their limited needs require with the small set of mac software that either came with it is available, or they are willing to pay more for inferior hardware and go ahead and install windows on it so they can do things macs aren't meant to do, which is the only real head-scratcher for me. The appeal of the mac OS is it's closed design. Less opportunity to mess with things means they will all mostly work in the same way.

Unfortunately, MS seems to be thinking they want to follow suit. Windows 8 started out as a locked down crap pile. You did things the way they told you to, or you used a different OS. It seems as though back-lash has spurred some reversal, and although they are still being as stubborn as they can get away with, slowly, changes are happening in 8 to allow more customization and options as older windows versions did. I previously refused to use it, but frankly, at this point, it's better than 7 except for the damn start window taking over the screen and some of the "metro" crap.

In the end, though it's the options that can get people into trouble. Windows deals with all manner of hardware and software on the market and nobody could ever test all the combinations like you can in a smaller closed environment.

They're different things. I would never suggest my mom not use a mac, she couldn't handle all the "stuff" going on with a good PC, and she doesn't want to.

I don't know why people argue these points. Macs, by their very design are meant to be uniform, locked down, and limiting. For some people, this is just the ticket. They don't want to mess with things, and the way apple tells them to do things works for them. They don't need the overwhelming majority of software titles because they can do most of what their limited needs require with the small set of mac software that either came with it is available, or they are willing to pay more for inferior hardware and go ahead and install windows on it so they can do things macs aren't meant to do, which is the only real head-scratcher for me. The appeal of the mac OS is it's closed design. Less opportunity to mess with things means they will all mostly work in the same way.

Unfortunately, MS seems to be thinking they want to follow suit. Windows 8 started out as a locked down crap pile. You did things the way they told you to, or you used a different OS. It seems as though back-lash has spurred some reversal, and although they are still being as stubborn as they can get away with, slowly, changes are happening in 8 to allow more customization and options as older windows versions did. I previously refused to use it, but frankly, at this point, it's better than 7 except for the damn start window taking over the screen and some of the "metro" crap.

In the end, though it's the options that can get people into trouble. Windows deals with all manner of hardware and software on the market and nobody could ever test all the combinations like you can in a smaller closed environment.

They're different things. I would never suggest my mom not use a mac, she couldn't handle all the "stuff" going on with a good PC, and she doesn't want to.

Well yeah, that was my point earlier. The Mac for me is a tool to get stuff done, I don't want to marvel at how I get it done, I'm too busy for that.

My last point was the irony of demonstrating against big corporations but using that big corporations' products to help in the process. I guess Apple will forever be thought of as those two kids building that first Apple in a garage ;)

Nonsense. Open user manager, add a user, do not put them in the administrators group. If you omit them from the "power users" group, they won't even be able to edit the registry. To install things you can either use "run as" or simply log out the low level user and log in as admin. I run dozens of networks, hundreds of PCs, about half still XP and almost never do I allow users to run with any sort of "root" access, which is really more of a *nix term. The macs I have to manage are actually a bit of an issue, because unlike Windows, the tools to manage large groups of users and computers for macs are the pits.

This isn't to say that folks shouldn't upgrade to 7 or 8, though. Both are more secure in other ways, and MS doesn't want to keep fixing XP holes.

It's funny you point out 'Inferior Hardware' Watso. This is where I have to disagree.

On paper, power against price, yes - Macs are more expensive. When you start to move into other categories like build quality, Macs start to become a good option. How many Ultrabooks are as well-built, reasonably-specced and have the battery life of a MacBook Air? Not many. In fact, as far as I'm aware all of them make some kind of horrible compromise to compete, usually battery life, screen quality or a 5400 HDD rather than SSD storage. The low-end Air is a compromise machine but to me the compromises are balanced reasonably against each other. Would I buy one? No. I'd want at least the 13.3 with the i7 and 8Gb of RAM and even then I want an optical drive, it's not a machine that meets my needs - but neither are any of the Ultrabooks and none of those are any cheaper.

That said, I'm really not sure about the Mac Pro.

I've had the same Macbook Pro since 2009. It's been a trusty companion and compared to cheaper PC laptops with similar specifications (except the eight-hour battery life), mine is the one that has survived the best. It's been dropped multiple times but it still works and the screen is still as good as the day I received it. All of the other computers I've had from OEM manufacturers in the past have developed major faults or were overly-noisy and generally unpleasant to use. My 2006 iMac still runs and has nothing wrong with it, all I've done is doubled the RAM. I've never had that with any desktop before even though my iMac is getting long in the tooth as a 32-bit only machine and can't run anything beyond OS X 10.6 (which is still probably the best version of OS X).

I'm not saying that Macs are for everyone. I'm a Linux dabbler too and really enjoy the customisability of the Linux systems that I've used and in the past used full-time and can absolutely see the appeal of a truly open operating system. I think that Linux is great and improving hardware support upstream can only be a good thing.

As for this disagreement over XP. Yes, you're right. You can lock down the Admin privileges and not allow users access to the root.

That's not the default setting though and how many people that buy computers that aren't advanced users like yourself will even know they can do that? Not many. If the default is to run as root user (yes, it's a *nix term but it's the best term I've got) permanently then when little Billy downloads that file from the Internet, it's going to compromise his machine and he doesn't have to give it permission to do so. At least in Vista, Microsoft made it harder to access root privileges by default.

So if Mum, Dad, whoever is running XP as a layperson, they are inherently more at risk than somebody running Vista, 7, 8, Mac OS X or any form of Linux.

It's funny you point out 'Inferior Hardware' Watso. This is where I have to disagree.

You don't disagree at all.

Quote:

On paper, power against price, yes - Macs are more expensive.

That's really all I care about.

Quote:

When you start to move into other categories like build quality, Macs start to become a good option.

How could you possibly make that comparison? I can easily spend more on a souped up PC that has more attention to detail and "build quality" than a mac, I also have the option to look at the thousands and thousands of options in-between rather than letting apple decide on a "build quality" for me and everyone else. I've bought "hardened" PC notebooks literally designed to be submerged, thrown around, work in dust-filled environments, etc. They typically cost about the same as a "high end" mac which is costlier still by a slight margin, and I can make fucking bombs with it if I like. Steve doesn't allow you to make bombs with your apple.

Quote:

How many Ultrabooks are as well-built, reasonably-specced and have the battery life of a MacBook Air?

Since I think both "ultrabooks" and the "mac book air" are a joke, (the air being the funnier, more useless joke) I'll ignore this. My current Asus notebook gets around 9 hours use if I'm careful, more like literally 90 days of standby, and I (well, the company) spent 700 bucks on it, windows included. It's a hybrid SSD with some platters that only spin up when I need them.

If you buy a mac, you pay a premium to be a part of their closed-hardware system with all it's faults and benefits. End of story. Why anyone argues this is beyond me.

Quote:

As for this disagreement over XP. Yes, you're right. You can lock down the Admin privileges and not allow users access to the root.

I was correcting you, not disagreeing. Of course I'm right. I'm an omnipotent being and the only time I was wrong was the one time I thought I might be wrong.

Quote:

That's not the default setting though and how many people that buy computers that aren't advanced users like yourself will even know they can do that? Not many.

That's because when XP came out, it wasn't such an issue for that OS. That OS is older than the big kit vs small kit debate. XP is no longer the best option for the average home user, and I don't think anyone would argue. *nix operating systems were designed for larger-scale stuff than just desktop work, to be used by people who know what they are doing, and had least-priv built in. Older macs allowed software install without rights elevation, too. Before XP came out, I used macs because back then the hardware really was different, and the software gap wasn't so gargantuan.

Quote:

So if Mum, Dad, whoever is running XP as a layperson, they are inherently more at risk than somebody running Vista, 7, 8, Mac OS X or any form of Linux.

With exception of the last one, this is true. Linux machines must be constantly updated just like windows, because they are historically hacked more than anything else, and even more open than windows is. I worked for an ISP for about 3 years, it was always the nix machines that got "rooted" which is (or used to be) a term for a hacker gaining access to root, even though it was locked down. It's a huge code-base with plenty of attack vectors...

But yes, I'm not going to argue about a new OS being more secure than a really old one. I don't know why I get sucked into this in the first place. I use and support macs when I have to, I also don't have any delusions about them being "better" for anything other than perhaps user preference.

Yea, totally! You can get black, OR white macbooks these days! Talk about individuality!

I don't know why people argue these points. Macs, by their very design are meant to be uniform, locked down, and limiting. For some people, this is just the ticket. They don't want to mess with things, and the way apple tells them to do things works for them. They don't need the overwhelming majority of software titles because they can do most of what their limited needs require with the small set of mac software that either came with it is available, or they are willing to pay more for inferior hardware and go ahead and install windows on it so they can do things macs aren't meant to do, which is the only real head-scratcher for me. The appeal of the mac OS is it's closed design. Less opportunity to mess with things means they will all mostly work in the same way.

Unfortunately, MS seems to be thinking they want to follow suit. Windows 8 started out as a locked down crap pile. You did things the way they told you to, or you used a different OS. It seems as though back-lash has spurred some reversal, and although they are still being as stubborn as they can get away with, slowly, changes are happening in 8 to allow more customization and options as older windows versions did. I previously refused to use it, but frankly, at this point, it's better than 7 except for the damn start window taking over the screen and some of the "metro" crap.

In the end, though it's the options that can get people into trouble. Windows deals with all manner of hardware and software on the market and nobody could ever test all the combinations like you can in a smaller closed environment.

They're different things. I would never suggest my mom not use a mac, she couldn't handle all the "stuff" going on with a good PC, and she doesn't want to.

I've used Macs since the 1980s and Windows since the 1990s, especially since 2000. I can tell you some things are easier with a PC, some with a Mac. This whole rubbish about Macs being more intuitive is bunk. Some simple things are much harder on a Mac and you have to jump through Apple's hoops. Yes, the user is kept away from certain things on a Mac, but other things are easier I am finding, like hardcore programming and Web development. Really, strip away the marketing hoopla and there isn't a whole lot of difference between them. They basically do the same things in the same ways.

That is the single wisest statement in this thread. Anybody see "Life of Brian"?
Brian (to crowd): "You're all different."
Crowd in unison: "We're all different."
Lone man in crowd: "Except me."

It also makes me think about kids who have to have the latest fashions to show their individuality.

I've been a professional software developer for a long, long time. There is much to hate about both Microsoft and Apple. However, I have noticed as time goes by, they are becoming much more like each other, and much more closed to innovation and outsiders (not that either was ever particularly 'open').
Although I use Windows about 90% of the time (and Linux the rest), I don't think I would give a recommendation of either Windows or Mac over the other. It mostly comes down to personal preference. The one difference is that Mac's are usually pricier, but easier to use and more reliable, although that is a vast generalization that is not always true. I will say that " Macs are best for computer programming," is a ridiculous statement. That's a bit like saying "everybody should drive a pickup truck". I am not saying Macs are bad, but they are definitely not 'best'. Mac, Windows, and Linux all have their strengths and weaknesses.

This just makes me think of that South Park episode with the goth kids who were so non-conformist that they were, in fact, conformists lol. For what it's worth, I'm wanting to buy a laptop at the end of the year and the MacBook Pro is a front runner right now.

__________________
"Use only that which works, and take it from wherever you can find it." -Bruce Lee

I'm another longtime hardware/software professional in my boring day existence: I'm a EE who specializes in microprocessor design (worked for Sun Microsystems on the Microsparc family of processors in the 80s and 90s). I've always been a Unix guy since my college days in the 70s, so I was quite happy when Apple came out with OS X (which is just a relatively decent Unix implementation with a pretty GUI stuck on top). It is easy enough to work around the GUI and use a Mac as a straightforward Unix box, which is what I do at this point.

I've participated in porting a number of the open-source software EDA tools I use (distributed logic and circuit simulation, primarily) to the Apple platform with good results. I've also fooled around with Linux quite a bit, but truth be told I like the stable hardware/software environment that the Mac Pros provide. I find the OS X platform to be as wide open as I want it to be: I build the tools I need as I go, if nobody else has already built them.

There's one good thing about Apple hardware users: they routinely abandon their current hardware to go get the latest and greatest. That is great for me, as I haven't bought a new machine since I bought my original Mac Plus back in the day. I only buy used machines a minimum of one generation back as a rule, and I've found that I've been able to maintain a very nice level of bang for my buck doing so. I recently replaced the last few Sun Ultrasparc servers in my compute farm with a number of used Mac Pros of 2010 vintage: less than half of the machine count, and less than a quarter of the power consumption, got me about a factor of 5 improvement in simulation throughput.

I still run Parallels under OS X to get a Windows XP seat on my desktop machine to do the handful of things that absolutely require Windows: Explorer for badly-written Web sites, and Visio for preparing documents in that bizarre proprietary format for for one specific client that insists upon it. But professionally I've moved completely away from anything to do with Microsoft. It is a personal bias after my Sun experience, but so it goes.

The DAW in the studio is still running Cubase on Windows XP, but soon it will be going down the road to someone who can tolerate its flakiness, and being replaced with Logic on a Mac Pro. Not looking forward to porting years of projects over, but I can't get the thing to stay up for longer than about an hour at a time, and my patience with it is pretty well spent at this point. It is interfering with my enjoyment of my music, and I'm not kindly disposed towards that. Getting the Blue Screen Of Death mid-take gets my blood to a boil very quickly.

You can do whatever you want with any of the platforms, to be sure. It all comes down to your experience, your training, and your personal threshold of patience- and pain.... (;-)

Regardless, buy used: let someone *else* take the depreciation hit. A little patience in buying your machines can save a great deal of cash. You do not need the latest and greatest of anything in the computing world: technology moves too fast. You may _lust_ for it, but you don't _need_ it to get work done...

So true. I don't understand why they put their heads back in their asses every other big version... The biggest gripe I have is that this last one (8) would be really a great OS if they would just stop trying to be apple and force one particular interface on us. Metro sucks a lot with a mouse and keyboard, and it's not like we're quiet about that fact. But this time, everything else in 8 has been amazing. There's just no reason, and no excuse why the damn start screen needs to take over everything and be super clunky. We aren't dumb and we know that they could damn well put in a pop up start menu if they would just not be so stubborn.

There's just no reason, and no excuse why the damn start screen needs to take over everything and be super clunky. We aren't dumb and we know that they could damn well put in a pop up start menu if they would just not be so stubborn.

What's with that? They routinely foist major unwanted changes on users. Like when they introduced the ribbon into MS Office.

It wasn't an improvement and IMO was often counter intuitive. I had to create about 15 quick start shortcuts to maintain productivity at work. I think they created the Ribbon to isolate Open Office users - so anyone thinking of switching to the free open source alternative would be deterred by the learning curve between ribbon and menus.

I've only had it a few days but the only thing I don't like about Windows 8 is the start button being removed. It was so easy in 7 to just click that button and then search for stuff. I'm baffled by it's removal but it can easily be brought back in a Service Pack update.

As for Mac, I don't think I could justify buying one. If you look at the individual hardware components piece by piece, Apple inflate the prices. So you end up spending a grand and a half on a Macbook Pro when a laptop that is every bit as powerful is half the price.

What's with that? They routinely foist major unwanted changes on users. Like when they introduced the ribbon into MS Office.

Unfortunately, more and more they are trying to out-apple apple. It used to be that people would rag on MS OSes and programs because they were typically the opposite of apple products. Function over form, options over ease-of-use. Now more and more, they just want to force us into one way of doing things, and make it uniformly pretty. For those of us that aren't idiots or mac users, simple menus work better; but might be less pretty and less "user(idiot) friendly" than huge buttons with pretty pictures on them.

Also, they were probably getting things ready for their current attempts to push touch-screen use on us. One area where small menus get frustrating is when you're trying to use your finger instead of a pointer which is more precise and efficient.

Quote:

I think they created the Ribbon to isolate Open Office users - so anyone thinking of switching to the free open source alternative would be deterred by the learning curve between ribbon and menus.

They don't really feel threatened by the open office crowd. They sell office to businesses, not individuals for the most part. Sure there is competition, but kinda like adobe and photoshop, everyone still wants the "real stuff". I think it's more likely about touch-screen plans and making things more pretty.

Unfortunately, more and more they are trying to out-apple apple. It used to be that people would rag on MS OSes and programs because they were typically the opposite of apple products. Function over form, options over ease-of-use. Now more and more, they just want to force us into one way of doing things, and make it uniformly pretty. For those of us that aren't idiots or mac users, simple menus work better; but might be less pretty and less "user(idiot) friendly" than huge buttons with pretty pictures on them.

I'm genuinely curious here... what is it about the Mac interface that compromises functionality for looks? When I say I'm genuinely curious, I am genuinely curious, not trying to be smart.

I mean, yeah, I'm a self-proclaimed Apple fanboy, but I'll probably be working with computers one day myself, so it'd be interesting to hear about your experiences.

I'm genuinely curious here... what is it about the Mac interface that compromises functionality for looks? When I say I'm genuinely curious, I am genuinely curious, not trying to be smart.

It's not always for looks, in fact, probably more often, it's supposedly for ease of use. I'll give you a few examples and hope a fight doesn't break out...

For example. Windows has always been very context-driven. Windows is designed with the requirement of more than one button on the mouse. This is because if you right-click almost anything in windows, you'll get a menu of options or popular actions related to what you're clicking on. Steve decided that multiple button mouses might be confusing and ugly so the OS is designed around one, and most models do not have extra buttons. Far less context driven, and generally tries to hide the extra options and controls. Speaking of mice. Talk about form over function. Just about every apple mouse ever designed has been really terrible. From mouses where the whole top is one huge un-comfortable button, to hand-cramping little tiny pucks, most serious users go buy 3rd party mouses and then map the "command" button to another one. Even so, the command menus are much less prominent and capable than how windows is designed for efficiency.

Another example is the way that unlike nearly every other device on the planet that accepts CD media, there's no damn button to eject it. Dragging an icon to "the trash" is really counter-intuitive and much more work, yet steve made the decision and most macs don't allow you to easily do this. Not a deal breaker for most, and as I said, Microsoft is trying to copy them a bit too much. Like the way they hide the damn shut down button and options in win 8. Clunky, hard to find and use... Not intuitive to anyone with computer experience.

Quote:

I mean, yeah, I'm a self-proclaimed Apple fanboy, but I'll probably be working with computers one day myself, so it'd be interesting to hear about your experiences.

If you're going to work in the industry, get rid of the apple-fan-boi persona. It's one of the most annoying things we deal with when we come across the odd admin who prefers macs, they really can't shut up about how great their macs are, usually right before they install windows on dual-boot so they can actually use some business software. You can certainly prefer macs, just try not to be annoying, and be honest about the limitations and financial drawbacks of the system.